You don't need randomness to get out of that situation, it is just a fight that needs to be retuned.

Until it deadlocks again.
The point is without randomness, there's always a theoretical chance that some balance can end up even.
RNG implemented properly would reduce that chance to almost virtually nil.

You don't need randomness to get out of that situation, it is just a fight that needs to be retuned.

Until it deadlocks again.
The point is without randomness, there's always a theoretical chance that some balance can end up even.
RNG implemented properly would reduce that chance to almost virtually nil.

The other problem is, truly random number generation is an impossibility on computers.
There was an algorithm manual that I read and it had an interesting quote that I saved.

"Unfortunately, generating random numbers looks a lot easier than it really is. Indeed, it is fundamentally impossible to produce truly random numbers on any deterministic device. Von Neumann said it best, “Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.” The best we can hope for are pseudo-random numbers, a stream of numbers that appear as if they were generated randomly."

It is one of the reasons why I prefer to have the least amount of random in games as possible.

Yeah nah.

Whilst it is not truly random, RNG's are generally complex enough to be beyond general human ability. So unless its badly programmed you as a human being are not actually likely to be able to game it, well not without doing some serious testing and having amazing skill at doing things EXACTLY the same every time, and even then it depends on the type of RNG and the types of factors they are using to determine the number.

Whilst it is not truly random, RNG's are generally complex enough to be beyond general human ability. So unless its badly programmed you as a human being are not actually likely to be able to game it, well not without doing some serious testing and having amazing skill at doing things EXACTLY the same every time, and even then it depends on the type of RNG and the types of factors they are using to determine the number.

I always feel better about winning in combat when it was because I made great tactical decisions, or if I screwed up and able to dig myself out. If it is "random" numbers, then I only feel that I got lucky and the feeling is just "meh" and it was just the roll of the dice that made me win really and it diminishes my own efforts and use of my brain.

Ideally, in an RPG, the system should be weighted by the abilities of the characters used. In this situation, the random element represents a situational difficulty, and the PC's skill at the task, represents their confidence and ability to control the situation—which they won't always be able to do, but generally the novice fails more than the expert... which is how it should be.

This means that even roleplaying Bruce Lee, you could lose at hand to hand, once in a while; and it would represent either a mistake, or bad circumstance. Also the reverse is possible; Samwise the hobbit can defeat Shelob—if she falls on his knife.

I'd definitely like an option to change your masteries in the middle of combat for cases like this. It should be fairly harsh - like you must have all opp points available and it uses all of them up - basically you skip an entire turn to have one character swap out skills.

I'd definitely like an option to change your masteries in the middle of combat for cases like this. It should be fairly harsh - like you must have all opp points available and it uses all of them up - basically you skip an entire turn to have one character swap out skills.

How does that make logical sense? I mean... the PC's have studied and trained (for years?) to attain skill mastery.

It would ( and should ) be impossible for them to undo their life's work on the spot; commitments are made to be kept.

**It sounds abysmal if the game actually plays like that. I haven't downloaded it yet, but I'm really starting to doubt if I want to.

"Where's the Bard?" ——to turn the phrase from an old Wendy's commercial.

It's not that part that makes no sense Gizmo - it's that the characters train a number of skills but can take only the masteries into combat. It's like a baker who has learned how to make bread, but because they specialise in cakes and pastries they're not allowed to bake bread anymore.

Having a skill tree where you can only bring a few skills into combat is a bloody stupid concept. I can see why it's been done - it does provide some interesting decisions around what to ''equip" on your characters, but conceptually it doesn't make sense. If there was more variation in enemies within each map then having such a restrictive system would probably bare more fruit.

BTW, this was clearly an issue with the original game too with 75% of learned spells not used past the level you acquire them - therefore the magic/skills system clearly did need changing... just not quite like this.

It stands to reason that going into a fight, a character wouldn't concentrate on, say, 4 of his 8 mastered skills, AND THEN BLOCK THE OTHERS OUT OF HIS MIND. If he knows how to do something, he knows how to do it; he doesn't develop temporary amnesia. He may have mentally prepared himself for the way he _thinks_ the fight is going to go. But if his plans aren't working the way he thought they would, he most definitely WILL switch to different tactics.

If the initial strategy looks like it is going to get you killed, a person most definitely would shift to different tactics. The only complication would be if it became necessary to change weapons. But if he sticks with what he started with, then altering style is nothing particularly difficult. For example, starting out planning on using predominantly sword slashing can be easily changed to focusing on thrusting. Two different skill sets, but just the one weapon.

[I base my opinion on having fenced in college for three years."Thinking on your feet" was an absolute necessity.]

It stands to reason that going into a fight, a character wouldn't concentrate on, say, 4 of his 8 mastered skills, AND THEN BLOCK THE OTHERS OUT OF HIS MIND. If he knows how to do something, he knows how to do it; he doesn't develop temporary amnesia. He may have mentally prepared himself for the way he _thinks_ the fight is going to go. But if his plans aren't working the way he thought they would, he most definitely WILL switch to different tactics.

If the initial strategy looks like it is going to get you killed, a person most definitely would shift to different tactics. The only complication would be if it became necessary to change weapons. But if he sticks with what he started with, then altering style is nothing particularly difficult. For example, starting out planning on using predominantly sword slashing can be easily changed to focusing on thrusting. Two different skill sets, but just the one weapon.

[I base my opinion on having fenced in college for three years."Thinking on your feet" was an absolute necessity.]

the problem is that you think of combat in barrows deep as an abstract simulation of combat, while the developers thought of it in boardgame terms and just wanted what they thought was an interesting mechanic to play with after having played alot of hearthstone during office time.

BTW, this was clearly an issue with the original game too with 75% of learned spells not used past the level you acquire them - therefore the magic/skills system clearly did need changing... just not quite like this.

This makes me curious to see what the spell systems in BT1-3 would look like were they to be structured in a tree formation. It's not so much that the old/early spells couldn't be used later in the game at higher levels - they could - and indeed some of them scaled at higher skill levels. But yeah there are some spells that are directly overshadowed and made obsolete by higher level spells. They're laid out in spell caster levels, but it seems to me there could be a tree structure for the old spellbook to help visualize that use value of the trilogy better... hmm...

This makes me curious to see what the spell systems in BT1-3 would look like were they to be structured in a tree formation. It's not so much that the old/early spells couldn't be used later in the game at higher levels - they could - and indeed some of them scaled at higher skill levels. But yeah there are some spells that are directly overshadowed and made obsolete by higher level spells. They're laid out in spell caster levels, but it seems to me there could be a tree structure for the old spellbook to help visualize that use value of the trilogy better... hmm...

A 'folder' structure could work with an unwieldy collection like that; if the game would auto-sort mechanically alike spell effects, such that the most powerful is the default, but that the player has the option to specify casting a lesser (or more suitable) spell effect instead... And it's up to the developer to have situations that call for finesse; (choosing the lesser powered effect for its unique secondary features).

It's a good thing pilots aren't surprised by suddenly being forced to pilot while they're riding their bicycle. Oh right, I guess they change their skills on whim, because they know how to ride a bike and fly a plane, at all times. In BD, you're riding a bike. Then you get faced with an enemy. You can't change to another essential skill to survive that you're not pre-prepared to use.